Talk:Anti-terrorism

hi, interested parties.

this is gonna end up being more than a philosphical concept I hope. I hope to mention hegelian dialectics. If someone has a thesis on what terrorism is (and the terrorism article should be a fine place to start), then generating an antithesis should be possible and in a way inevitable. Kzzl 17:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC) ______

"Thinking conventionally, one can assume anti-terrorism must be more diplomatic and less confrontational than terrorism. Like it's mirror image, it is a broad term, though it is invoked perhaps once per ten-thousand uses of the term "terrorism". Since September 11th, 2001, leaders in Western civilization have emphasized the importance of living a full life with no undue fear, burden, no less valor. This is thought to be how an average citizen does his part to "defeat terrorism"."

This appears to be the author's own personal perception, no source provided.

the preceding sentence seems to be the opinion of it's author. why don't you just jump in and edit the article, dean? Nerdy Mc ^{Enemy that} 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"In the wake of the London bombings of 7 July and 21 July 2005, the term has been used to describe draconian legislative measure in both the United Kingdom and Australia. Such anti-terrorism laws usually extend to police unprecedented powers to detain and investigate persons suspected of terrorism. The legislation in Australia, for example, allows police to detain suspects for up to two weeks without charge, and to electronically track suspects for up to a year. In both countries, with entrenched liberal democratic traditions, the measures have been controversial and have been criticised by civil libertarians and Islamic groups." It is true that such legislation is controversial, however the paragraph has obviously been written to denounce such legislation. Also there are no sources given.

The philosophical stuff needs cleaning up and the antiterrorism legislation part should just be cut out (could be rewritten if it is written more neutrally). I suspect however it's not really necessary as we have extensive articles on antiterrorism legislation at Terrorism Laws.Georgeslegloupier 01:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

let's start w/ "counter-" and "anti-" are different prefixes. they mean different things. they're damn close but the distinction is important. anti counter- so then. who controls the idea of the still incubating idea of "anti-terrorism"? all of us. counterterrorism is pretty well established as the methods of/process used to fight terrorism. I'll be around sharpening things up. this should so not be merged. Nerdy Mc ^{Enemy that} 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

debatable. The US Army uses both to mean the same thing: i.e. we get an AntiTerrorism briefing, before training for counter-terrorism operations.

Not too philosophical

The article should start easy, and any heavy philosophical discussion should be at the end for the particularly interested. There are more immediate and practical issues relating to anti-terrorism, and those should be at the front. Such issues are the anti-terrorism legislation, its implications for civil liberties and human rights, the misuse of the cause of anti-terrorism that led to the resurgence of the use of torture by Western nations and the exportation of subjects to be tortured in non-western nations. Also, the licentious and somewhat widespread use the 'anti-terrorism' concept by marketting and public relations departments of many corporations, such as the media association when it fights copyright infringement and claims 'copyright theft helps terrorism'. Let's not forget all those 'helps terrorism' nonsense used day in and out as an argument by dishonest folks.

right on. you should also feel free to edit the article. I'm not even trying to be stupid. Nerdy Mc ^{Enemy that} 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-terrorism vs counter-terrorism

"the prefix "anti-" suggests a diplomatic and less confrontational line than counterterrorism."

Sounds like original research or opinion. Merge anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism. You can discuss the supposed difference between the two in one article. And what's with these *zzl users? sock puppets?--Quarl 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I OK MERGE hereby- take care. Nerdy Mc ^{Enemy that} 04:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. "Anti-" would be more of a philisophical view that hopes to negate terrorism... "Counter" terrorism is what is meant, and until someone wants to come up with some sort of semi-religious movement that engages in open "anti-terrorism", we don't need this stub at all. gspawn 05:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreeing with gspawn; this should be merged with counter-terrorism to avoid confusion. Molimo 04:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)